footpath access

europeandy

just back from holiday in england where someone tried to stop me from cycling on a footpath that was on their land. Now I wasnt being irresponsible, this was actually a road that was classed as a footpath, the owner uses it for tractors and the Roller, which they presumably drive yet they expected me to push :shock:
I politely said I thought this was unreasonable and cycled on, I wasnt trespassing as it was a public right of way (on foot) so whats the legal position on this?

They dont get away with that kind of behaviour up here

supersonic

It is illegal to ride on footpaths. It's also illegal to drive tractors on them too.

roger_merriman

but not wrong for the owner of the land to A ask you not to ride the bike, end of the day it's his land. B for said owner to use tractors cars etc on his land.

you wheren't expected to push the bike you where expected to be on foot. if you wanted to push a bike though well thats your choice and yes it was illegal of you to ride on.

taliesyn

supersonic wrote:

It is illegal to ride on footpaths. It's also illegal to drive tractors on them too.

Not in Scotland apparently. Dunno about tractors though

woodywmb

Yes. But not in Scotland.Access all areas is how the law sees it north of the border. The only requirement is that you act responsibly. ie get off the footpath if there are walkers using it.

S_J_P

If I remember the CROW act of 2000 correctly, riding on a footpath isn't technically "illegal", it is however a civil-wrong and the landowner could prosecute for trespass or nuisance.

What's interesting is that you've said that the footpath was actually a road originally. These were known as RUPP's (Roads Used as Public Paths) which have in some cases been reclassified footpaths, BOAT's (Byways open to all traffic), or bridleways. Where no reclassification has taken place when the CROW 2000 act came into force all remaining RUPP's were classified as restricted Byways.

Since it is entirely permissible to ride a bike on a BOAT, Restricted Byway, Bridleway, & un-reclassified RUPP, then unless the footpath in question has actually been reclassified as a footpath (prior to 2000) you are entitled to ride on it. This also means that the farmer is not allowed to use it for tractors unless it is a BOAT, if recalssification of a historic RUPP took place in 2000, he is now the one committing an offense!!

Where is the footpath?

pemsey

Sounds to me like it was actually someone's private drive/road with a footpath ROW running along it - in which case you're not allowed to cycle on it in England and the owner of the land would be perfectly entitled to ask you to stop.
I believe you could technically comitting some sort of act of trespass just by pushing a bike along it as the rather antiquted law only allows you to use footpaths with things normally used for walking - so a stick etc is ok (as long as no-one thinks you're carrying an offensive weapon!), a dog is Ok, but you can't really push a bike - though the chances of anyone actually complaining about that are remote - I hope!

Splasher

Yup, riding a bike on a footpath is tresspass because your right of way is limited to foot-traffic. Driving a tractor on it is also tresspass for anyone else, but off course the owner can do what he likes since it is his land and he does not have to rely on the right of way to be entitled to be there.

S_J_P

That's an interesting point!

I'd never thought of the ROW laws from the actual landowners perspective :oops:

I guess there must also be some sort of safe-use requirement though, and I'm sure a rambler somewhere must have challenged a landowner's use of a public footpath for vehicle access on safety grounds!

europeandy

thanks for the reply's,
i'll be ignoring that law when I visit tho, thank FSM i live in Scotland.

Isnt trespass alone a civil offence in England, and doesnt the land owner just have the right to ask me to leave by the shortest reasonable route?

Father Faff

You can difinitely ride on footpaths in Scotland. In England I understand you can push a bicycle (why else would they be called "pushbikes"?) on footpaths however this may be an urban myth. Can anyone confirm that you can't be challenged for pushing a bike on a footpath?

supersonic

Whan the rozzers stopped me for riding on a public footpath (roadside) they told me to get off and push!

stumpyjon

I've done a bit of research over the months and what I've concluded is:

1. It's definitely a civil offence.
2. You can't be prosecuted (Trepassers will be prosecuted signs are meaningless), you can however be sued for Trepass resulting in a fine which is likely to token (it's based on the damage you've caused and tyre tracks don't really damage much) but you may also get costs awarded against you which could be expensive.
3. There's very few cases of anyone getting sued (if any).
4. Whether pushing your bike is legal is not firmly defined and won't be until someone tries to sue a cyclist. The access law states that a walker with a reasonable accompianment (e.g. umbrella, push chair etc.) has rights of way. I don't think the ramblers think a bicycle is a reasonable accompianment where as the IMBA do. It all hinges on another piece of case law where a bloke pushing a bike across a pedestrian crossing was knocked down and the judge ruled he was a pedestrian not a cyclist.

It's all a b*ggers muddle, there's lots of poorly defined law and the Scots have a much better system. Biggest problem you're likely to get is a threatening landowner who has no idea how the law works having a go at you. You'll have to make your own judgement whether it's worth arguing the legal toss that over whether you can push your bike or not.

supersonic

Some useful info here:

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/access.html

Plus this extract from Derbys council:

It is the responsibility of landowners to:
-keep rights of way on their land clear of overgrowth – plants growing across the path
-from beside it (for example, hedge outgrowth across a path)
-maintain any stiles and gates which are needed on the path
-keep the path free from obstruction – including growing crops, fallen trees and branches
-not plough field edge paths, or any byway

S_J_P

Isn't there some issue with the difference between a footpath (adjacent to a highway) and a public ROW footpath? I seem to remember that I read that the ROW rules only apply to a ROW footpath, and that roadside paths are constrained by the Highways Act.

valheru

Strange I was going to post on the very same topic today, after having been confronted in exactly the same circumstances over the w/e. The thing that really annoys me is people saying thats the law end of story.

Laws are usually there for a reason, the law on bikes on footpaths is wrong in my opinion, but the reasoning behind it, is protecting the footpath from bike damage and protecting pedestrians from bikes. Now apply this reasoning to a large track used by tractors, and this is obviously wrong.

Unless you can hand on heart say you have never broken the speed limit then people have to admit they do break some laws to a certain degree. In my opinion the law on bikes on footpaths should be scraped, as in Scotland and the rest of the world. However until that happens I try to avoid cycling on footpaths, however when the law is so obviously wrong as in this circumstance, and is just being used by the landowner as an excuse to be unpleasant then I will completely ignore the law!

stumpyjon

The thing that really annoys me is people saying thats the law end of story.

With you there, if they tell you that they know the law and you shouldn't be there, they obviously don't understand the state of our current access law.

Keep meaning to write down the case law references and drop them into my camelback. Probably just end up getting smacked for being a smartarse though :evil:

S_J_P

What really gets me is the state of a lot of PROW's around the South East which cyclists can use.

The BOATS are almost wholly torn-up by 4x4's, trials bikes, and quads and the smell of two-stroke makes then unpleasant to ride. Restricted Byways are almost always all but impassable due to foliage, and Bridleways are usually such a mess that they're virtually unridable. Footpaths are the only off-road PROW's that seem to be in a reasonable state, but they're out of bounds

Is it any better in other parts of the country??

dave_hill

europeandy wrote:

thanks for the reply's,
i'll be ignoring that law when I visit tho, thank FSM i live in Scotland.

Do you ignore the law in every country that you visit? We have to work very hard to uphold the image that mountain bikers are responsible individuals and engage in equally responsible activities. That attitude doesn't help the image of the sport or help to further our causes.

europeandy wrote:

Isnt trespass alone a civil offence in England, and doesnt the land owner just have the right to ask me to leave by the shortest reasonable route?

Trespass alone is a civil offence. If a landowner feels that you are guilty of trespass they can bring a case against you, but the burden of proof falls on them - i.e. they have to prove that you were causing damage to their land, that you strayed off the right of way, or that you stopped for an unreasonable period (you are allowed to stop on a PROW, as the law states for a "reasonable amount of time", but again, what "reasonable" means is anybody's guess).

However, local by-laws, or traffic regulation orders (TROs) that specifically prevent cycling can make it that trespass actually becomes a criminal offence, which means that it can be prosecuted by the CPS.

The case of Taylor v Goodwin (1879) established that in law a bicycle is a carriage. Use of a carriage on a public footpath in line with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 1948 and all it's subsequent acts and amendments leaves the accused open to a charge of trespass.

However, there is some conjecture as to how the law views a bicycle when it is being pushed (there is one school of thought that it is a perambulator or wheelchair), or when it is being carried (package).

To get back to your original post, I agree with most all of the responses that you've got; the person who challenged you was right - you were riding on a public footpath, and you shouldn't have been regardless of its appearances. If it's a mile wide and it's only classed as public footpath, you still shouldn't be on it.

Regardless of whether anyone thinks they know better or otherwise, the law is the law and until it changes we have to abide by it whether we like it or not.

Splasher

"Reasonable" is decided by the court as "what the man on the Clapham omnibus" would consider reasonable in that context IIRC.

valheru

dave_hill wrote:

europeandy wrote:

thanks for the reply's,
i'll be ignoring that law when I visit tho, thank FSM i live in Scotland.

Do you ignore the law in every country that you visit? We have to work very hard to uphold the image that mountain bikers are responsible individuals and engage in equally responsible activities. That attitude doesn't help the image of the sport or help to further our causes.

europeandy wrote:

Isnt trespass alone a civil offence in England, and doesnt the land owner just have the right to ask me to leave by the shortest reasonable route?

Trespass alone is a civil offence. If a landowner feels that you are guilty of trespass they can bring a case against you, but the burden of proof falls on them - i.e. they have to prove that you were causing damage to their land, that you strayed off the right of way, or that you stopped for an unreasonable period (you are allowed to stop on a PROW, as the law states for a "reasonable amount of time", but again, what "reasonable" means is anybody's guess).

However, local by-laws, or traffic regulation orders (TROs) that specifically prevent cycling can make it that trespass actually becomes a criminal offence, which means that it can be prosecuted by the CPS.

The case of Taylor v Goodwin (1879) established that in law a bicycle is a carriage. Use of a carriage on a public footpath in line with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 1948 and all it's subsequent acts and amendments leaves the accused open to a charge of trespass.

However, there is some conjecture as to how the law views a bicycle when it is being pushed (there is one school of thought that it is a perambulator or wheelchair), or when it is being carried (package).

To get back to your original post, I agree with most all of the responses that you've got; the person who challenged you was right - you were riding on a public footpath, and you shouldn't have been regardless of its appearances. If it's a mile wide and it's only classed as public footpath, you still shouldn't be on it.

Regardless of whether anyone thinks they know better or otherwise, the law is the law and until it changes we have to abide by it whether we like it or not.

Just because its a law doesn't mean its correct, there have been any number of laws that have been challenged in this country and there by removed or changed. If you do not challenge these laws they will not be changed. The law on bicycles on footpaths is a joke anyway, with most towns and cities re-classifying lots of pavements for bikes and pedestrians. Most other countries in the world do quite well without this law.

Can you explain the reason why a bike should not ride on a track used by tractors, with a public right of way? - any reasonable minded person would agree there is none - therefore it should be challenged.

If everyone held the same view that its a law so thats it, then women still wouldn't be able to vote!

Father Faff

Absolutely - in most countries in the world, including Scotland, bicycles can go on most paths. Why the English have to be so stuck up about it I'm not sure. In fact it is these Little NIMBY Englanders and feudal landowners who need a damn good spanking - if they had their way no one would be allowed to enjoy the countryside at all and we'd all be confined to the cities. As a Scot myself I firmly believe we should all protest against nonsense laws even if that means making a stand. After all the ramblers won the right to roam so why shouldn't cyclists win the right to ride?

valheru

dave_hill wrote:

europeandy wrote:

thanks for the reply's,
i'll be ignoring that law when I visit tho, thank FSM i live in Scotland.

Do you ignore the law in every country that you visit? We have to work very hard to uphold the image that mountain bikers are responsible individuals and engage in equally responsible activities. That attitude doesn't help the image of the sport or help to further our causes.

europeandy wrote:

Isnt trespass alone a civil offence in England, and doesnt the land owner just have the right to ask me to leave by the shortest reasonable route?

Trespass alone is a civil offence. If a landowner feels that you are guilty of trespass they can bring a case against you, but the burden of proof falls on them - i.e. they have to prove that you were causing damage to their land, that you strayed off the right of way, or that you stopped for an unreasonable period (you are allowed to stop on a PROW, as the law states for a "reasonable amount of time", but again, what "reasonable" means is anybody's guess).

However, local by-laws, or traffic regulation orders (TROs) that specifically prevent cycling can make it that trespass actually becomes a criminal offence, which means that it can be prosecuted by the CPS.

The case of Taylor v Goodwin (1879) established that in law a bicycle is a carriage. Use of a carriage on a public footpath in line with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 1948 and all it's subsequent acts and amendments leaves the accused open to a charge of trespass.

However, there is some conjecture as to how the law views a bicycle when it is being pushed (there is one school of thought that it is a perambulator or wheelchair), or when it is being carried (package).

To get back to your original post, I agree with most all of the responses that you've got; the person who challenged you was right - you were riding on a public footpath, and you shouldn't have been regardless of its appearances. If it's a mile wide and it's only classed as public footpath, you still shouldn't be on it.

Regardless of whether anyone thinks they know better or otherwise, the law is the law and until it changes we have to abide by it whether we like it or not.

Just because its a law doesn't mean its correct, there have been any number of laws that have been challenged in this country and there by removed or changed. If you do not challenge these laws they will not be changed. The law on bicycles on footpaths is a joke anyway, with most towns and cities re-classifying lots of pavements for bikes and pedestrians. Most other countries in the world do quite well without this law.

Can you explain the reason why a bike should not ride on a track used by tractors, with a public right of way? - any reasonable minded person would agree there is none - therefore it should be challenged.

If everyone held the same view that its a law so thats it, then women still wouldn't be able to vote!

Milkie

It's a dam shame you can't ride along footpaths..

Right by me there is the Frome Valley Walkway, but its classed as a footpath (I think), so you're not allowed to ride it... Yet no one uses it, well not by me (Yate).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frome_Valley_Walkway

It seems crazy, with everyone trying to go green, then you get stumped by stupid laws! Something should be changed !

supersonic

I ride on footpaths - not the pavement though. I have hit a pedestian coming out of a shop on a narrow street before, oops! Saying that I do ride on the pavement on some narrow A and B roads if i have good site. I use common sense for the situation.

supersonic

I ride on footpaths - not the pavement though. I have hit a pedestian coming out of a shop on a narrow street before, oops! Saying that I do ride on the pavement on some narrow A and B roads if i have good site. I use common sense for the situation.

Splasher

I'm going to go against the flow here and say I'm happy you cannot ride on a footpath in England. I say this because England is crowded compared to Scotland and segregating walkers and bikers is good for both.

Think about the opposite view, walkers on MTB trails in trail centres. I know you do come across the occasional one but ususally they're unaware and soon get put right. It's not just that we're a menace to them, they are a menace to us, spoiling the flow of the ride. Anyone who's ridden the GR5 sections around Morzine will know what I mean.

Father Faff

Well walkers probably can legally walk along trailcentre trails - though they might be foolish too. And Scotland is just as densely populated in parts as England. The answer is that where walkers and cyclists share paths then the cyclists give way to pedestrans if necessary as they currently do on bridleways.

Splasher

Father Faff wrote:

Well walkers probably can legally walk along trailcentre trails - though they might be foolish too. And Scotland is just as densely populated in parts as England. The answer is that where walkers and cyclists share paths then the cyclists give way to pedestrans if necessary as they currently do on bridleways.

Usually they can't because in any permissive access, the land-owner decides who has access and who doesn't so for example as soon as the forestry commission erect a sign that says "mountain bike trail - walkers do not enter" it becomes trespass to do so.

And I know that there are areas of Scotland etc. etc., being Scottish myself but if you consider it on a mile of footpath per head, I'm sure you'll agree there is a lot more in Scotland to go around - and long may it stay that way.

I don't like being buzzed by bikes when I'm walking with the family and I don't like constantly having to keep stopping on the bike while a family panic in front of me as to which way to go to get out of the way.

Just my point of view.

Father Faff

Anyway, for those who do want to ride legally on footpaths (or at least have more footpaths converted to bridleways) is there any cycling group taking up the cause. I don't know if the CTC campaigns at all - if it does I've heard nothing. Maybe it's time for cyclists to set up a Ramblers Association for cyclists?

europeandy

you have to challenge unjust laws, and theres a long history of doing so in this cause, without which the citizens of England (me included) probably wouldn't have access to the little bit of there land that we are allowed.
A look at the map shows just how ridiculous CROW is, tiny pockets of open access land, and people excluded for spurious reasons (Vixen Tor). And the situation on waterways is just as bad, with about 2% of navigable rivers able to be paddled legally.
All this to maintain the exclusivity of the rich landowners.
The key to open access in Scotland is responsibility, you don't cane it down footpaths, but you can cycle down them, and on the whole, everyone gets along. The landowners dont make ridiculous demands because they know they cant get away with it, and I dont believe many of them even mind anymore.
The Scottish Outdoor Access Code really has changed things up here, on rivers where you could have expected open confrontation you now get a wave because no-one feels they have exclusive rights, dont give up and accept what you have.